no title

Bill would bring balance to economic zones

Letters Policy

The Dispatch welcomes letters to the editor from readers. Typed letters of 200 words or
fewer are preferred; all might be edited. Each letter must include name, home address and daytime
phone number.
Dispatch.com also posts letters that don't make it to print in
The Dispatch.

I respond to the March 29 letter from John Carlisle, director of the Ohio Township Association,
who was critical of
The Dispatch’s March 16 editorial, “License to plunder,” about how joint economic
development zones have been created and abused.

Carlisle started by rightly saying that the intent of the zones is to provide townships a tool
to finance improvements related to economic development. And he decried the fact that townships
sometimes are not at the table when county commissioners grant property-tax abatements to
businesses locating in a township. But he neglected to mention that the township and municipality
(or municipalities) negotiating the zone often exclude existing businesses that end up being “drawn
in” and thus must pay a municipal income tax on their business profits and employee wages.

So the injustice decried in one instance is allowed in another. We’ve seen recently in Pickaway,
Delaware, Licking and Hamilton counties attempts to form such zones by “drawing in” major employers
located in townships. The affected businesses objected to paying a local income tax and the
economic development purpose of the zone was not apparent.

House Bill 289 strikes a fair balance between the interests of existing businesses in townships
not to have a municipal income tax imposed on them or their employees, and those of townships
seeking legitimate economic development, rather than raising revenue under the guise of economic
development.